nfoligno

Not sure I get your point. Sure, we reach for some players, and other times we go after a guy who slipped. That really isn't what I am talking about. I simply think if a guy rises by leaps and bounds warrants a "buyer beware" flag. That isn't to say a guy who leaps from undrafted to 1st round is w/o question going to be a bust. No. The point is a player who rises by numerous rounds raises a big red flag for me. While I am not saying there is no scenario where I would draft him, I am saying I usually try to avoid such a player. He isn't the only one. I just really worry about guys who are considered late round picks based on the way they played on the field, but then they show how good they can look in shorts, and suddenly they leap up the boards. Sorry, but for me, that is a red flag.

First, let me just say that I would not be absolutely against two WRs in rounds 2 and 3. I don't care who we draft. No WR we take will be a sure thing. Yet, at the same, what is a sure thing is our need. I would argue it is too important we add weapons for Cutler, and if that means hedging our bets, so be it. Not only that, but we are so thin now that WR, that if both were to step up, that would be absolutely fine. Okay, while I would not hate drafting WR in the 2nd and 3rd, at the same time, I think it will be the 2nd and 7th.

The one thing I'd disagree with is Angelo's fate being tied to Cutler. Mainly because seemingly every Bear fan wanted the guy. He won't receive too much grief for this. Ultimately his fate will be tied to what it's always been tied too: Wins and losses. And Angelo's Bear teams have proven they can win with really bad quarterback play. He won't receive too much grief? Are you kidding. If Angelo sends two #1 picks and a 3rd, plus Orton, and the player in return busts, you "don't think he would get too much grief for this"? Sorry, but fans have short term (selective short term) memory. A fan who screamed to draft Williams last year now shouts how could Angelo draft a guy w/ injury red flags. A fan who thought it was time for Benson and time to get rid of TJ now wonders what our GM was thinking. Sorry, but that is the way it goes. It is often said 1st round draft picks can make or break a GM. Even if he does well w/ other picks, if the picks most in the spotlight (and w/ the biggest contracts) bomb, then that GM has cloudy future. If a GM trades away two #1s (not to mention the rest), I would absolutely argue his future would be tied to that player. I personally will never rip Angelo, and will forever give him credit for the move, regardless whether it works out or not. But IMHO, a huge number of fans (if Cutler were to bomb) would be talking about how great Orton "could have been" and would talk about who we could have had w/ the picks we gave up. Suck is the way it goes in the NFL, and life.

A player I would not be surprised to see us get with the 3rd rounder is Mike Mitchell S Ohio. He has experience at FS, SS, CB, runs well, hits hard, and seems like an intelligent player. Even if it would be considered a "reach" I think they like him alot. Isn't Mitchell considered a SS? He may have experience all over, but don't most project him at SS? And talk about a reach. The couple key publications I often look at both have him listed as an undrafted FA. Maybe he goes in the later part of the draft, but the 3rd? I also think they like the DE from Texas in the fourth round. I assume you mean Melton and not Orakpo. If we drafted Melton, I would be a bit sick. Can you say John Theirry? Melton is the sort who, in the offseason, he looks great. Look at him run around in shorts, or see how he is built, and he looks great. On the field though... Melton was a RB initially at Texas. I think he played RB his first year or two, but was then converted to DE. I don't think he really even played at DE until this last year, and really didn't do much of anything to standout. Especially w/ Orakpo drawing all the attention, you would think Melton would have been positioned to do more. Not saying we wouldn't take him, but simply that I think he has bust written all over him. He is a guy who is drafted due to what scouts see him do in shorts, and not in pads. If you go off what he did in pads, he would not even be drafted. A player I would watch is Matt Shaughnessy. First, you just have to love the name. Second, how about this quote, "Shaughnessy is the kind of player you could envision stepping out on the field in a leather helmet playing for George Halas". He suffered some injuries, which could push his draft stock down (good value/risk pick) but he is just the sort of edge pass rusher Angelo/Lovie love to add.

While I am not saying our schedule is as easy as last year's winning percentages would indicate, I think the reason most feel our schedule is rather easy goes beyond the 0-16 Kittens. The Rams only had 2 wins. We also have Seattle, Cle and Cincy, who each had a total of 4 wins. I think Seattle and Cincy will be better this year w/ their QBs healthy, but neither look to be that great. Cle could be worse this year than last. The schedule may not be easy, but I would point out the reason many are calling it the easiest goes beyond just Detroit.

Some random thoughts on each team, 1 Sep 13 CHI @ GB - W Always a tough matchup, and while I hate our going against a 3-4 out of the gate, I at the same time think it unlikely GB will be gelling in their new defensive scheme so early, and feel this is a great start for us. 2 Sep 20 PIT @ CHI - L Its nice to be at home, but this is a tough game. 3 Sep 27 CHI @ SEA - W Seattle may be a better team this year than last. Last year, they suffered w/ many injuries, but w/ Hassel back and w/ better weapons, this will be a tougher matchup than Seattle's previous 4-12 record would otherwise expect. 4 Oct 04 DET @ CHI W May not be as bad as last year, but hey, they are still Detroit. 5 Bye 6 Oct 18 CHI @ ATL - W Atlanta is a good team, and could improve further in 2009, but getting them after a bye week could be a huge boost. 7 Oct 25 CHI @ CIN - W Another team which should be far better than their 2008 record. 2008, they were w/o Palmer, but he should be back. 8 Nov 01 CLE @ CHI - W I just do not see Cle being a good team this year. Big questions at QB, lost maybe their best offensive weapon in Winslow and may yet lose Edwards. Defense could improve some in 2009, but their offense could take three steps backward. 9 Nov 08 ARI @ CHI - L Az should be a good team again, but getting them at home, and forcing their playmakers to play on our sod is a big help. Now, can we make it rain too? 10 Nov 12 CHI @ SF - W There will be plenty of hype due to Singletary, but SF is simply not a very good team, and has many holes they are unlikely to fill before 2009. 11 Nov 22 PHI @ CHI - W Phily will be solid once again, but they are not what they once were. D is aging and lost a leader in Dawkins 12 Nov 29 CHI @ MIN - L Huge matchup, but we are in much better shape to play Miny w/ an improved offense and a better coached defense. 13 Dec 06 STL @ CHI - W Stl is a bad team, and may get no more wins in 2009 than in 2008. 14 Dec 13 GB @ CHI - W This should be fun, and a tough game. 15 Dec 20 CHI @ BAL - L Another tough game, and I see this one being physical. Should have playoff ramifications. 16 Dec 28 MIN @ CHI - W gotta love Minny having to play us this time of the year in Chicago. AP slips on his arce trying to cut in the snow on our turf. Entire Minny team dreams of being back in their dome. 17 Jan 03 CHI @ DET - W Nice to end the year w/ a bye week. Likely win this game playing only our 2nd string. starters not only get a break this week, but will have an extended rest period as we will have bye in the 1st round of the playoffs. 12-4 record and a 1st round bye in the playoffs.

In talking w/ a friend, more and more, I am beginning to think our 2nd round pick will be all about WR, and rounds 3 through 6 will pretty much go defense. Others might argue our need for a FS is just as great. Some argue DL is a favorite position for Angelo, and he may want to offer Marinelli (and Lovie) some more talent. But I really am beginning to think we will draft the best available WR in round 2. We all know WR is a need, but reasons I think we will go WR beyond that. Angelo went FAR outside his comfort zone in getting Cutler. This is the sort of move that instantly (IMHO) ties a GMs fate to a single player. If Cutler booms, Angelo will be remembered in a positive light for the long haul. If Cutler bombs, Angelo will likely be run out of town. I have said, and still maintain, I will never attack Angelo, regardless of what happens w/ Cutler, but I think the public overall would turn on Angelo pretty quick if Cutler bombs. Anyway, I think Angelo is going to look to add insurance behind his bet. A great QB can make good WRs look great, and average WRs look good, but there is a question whether we even have average WRs, but there is a questions as to whether we even have average WRs. If we do not upgrade the WR position, Cutler's star may not shine so bright, and thus Angelo's star would see the same shading effect. So I think Angelo will be locked in to add a weapon at the top of the draft for Cutler. The other aspect of this is, I think Angelo believes (and there is some evidence to support) he is pretty good finding solid defensive talent deeper in the draft. He may well believe he can more easily find solid defensive players after the 2nd. So while he may acknowledge we have needs at several defensive positions, especially FS, if he believes he can find diamonds in the rough, he could choose to draft WR first and then go D there after. We all hope there isn't a run on WRs, and maybe even some solid player slip some. My pie in the sky prayer would be for Nicks to fall. More realistic and yet nearly as much of a prayer, is for Robiskie to slip to us. But even if all the player who "we" may view as solid picks are gone, I think Angelo may regardless draft WR. I think our 2nd round pick will be a need pick rather than a value pick. Think about his first draft. In the 1st, there was no question OT was a top tier need, but few considered Columbo a very good value, and fewer still would have considered him the best available, yet he was our pick anyway. I think we could see the same again this year. Thus, if Mossaquoi is the top rated WR on the board, he would be our pick, even if our "big board" ranks (for example) R.Johnson or Sidbury as higher overall grades. So I think we will see a WR taken in the 2nd round. After that, I think it will be pretty much all defense until the 7th round, where I think we could see all three picks going back to offense. 2nd - WR 3rd - FS (is there any question this needs ranks up there w/ WR?) 4th - DE (Angelo loves the position, and we have little by way or proven commodities, and one starter due to hit FA next year) 5th - DB/LB (w/ our two 5th round picks, I see a CB and a LB. CB because Angelo often sees diamond in the rough types that fall and LB because, while we have two set starters in Briggs and Urlacher, Hunter played his way to the bench and Roach didn't step up, so our SLB spot is wide open, and combine that with the declining play of Urlacher. 6th - DT (We have Harris and Harrison, but after that....I like Adams, but I do not think the staff has ever been very much in his corner, Dusty may be on his way out, and Idonije is supposed to be dropping weight to move back to DE/special teams) 7th - QB/OL/WR/RB - I think all three picks in the 7th round go to offense, and feel 3 of the 4 listed will be drafted, w/ the 4th being a position we see several post-draft rookies brought in. If I were to guess, I would guess QB, OL and WR.

Correction! I am sorry I missed it, but Goss actually has Harvin going not only in the 1st round, but in the top 10. I have to believe this was done w/o knowledge of the positive drug test, but wanted to mention this. Not only that, but Britt too is drafted in the 1st round. Really sorry I missed these. Still has Nicks slipping, and no Robiskie. WRs he has going in the first round. #4 - Seattle - Crabtree - It would surprise me a bit to see them draft a WR this high, who would cost a ton, after signing Hous, but that is what he has. Gotta say though. Adding Crabtree and Hous would dramatically boost an offense, and likely extend the life of Hasselback. #6 - Cincy - Maclin #7 - Oak - Harvin - I missed Harving being drafted in the first round because he had him so dang high. Again, I think it was done prior to the leak about the positive drug test, which I think we all expect to drop his value. #17 - NYJ - DHB #30 - Tenn - Britt It has to be noted that this is his first mock, and he usually does 3, 4 or 5 mocks, and there will be many changes. I have a hard time seeing Harving going in the 1st w/ the positive drug test, much less top 10. Few others that stood out, which I suspect we will see changed prior to his final mock. Andre Smith at 26 to Baltimore. He notes the poor workouts, but I have a feeling we will see Smith much higher by Goss' final mock. James Laurinaitis at 25 to Miami. I know he is a favorite of many here. Josh Freeman at 12 to Denver. If I were a Bronco fan, I would be sick, having sent a franchise QB packing only to draft a QB who would not even be considered a 1st round value in most years, and taking him at 12.

how high did it rise. The first report I saw talked about him as a 2nd round prospect, maybe mid 2nd. He went mid 1st. Yes, that is a rise, but (a) it is a one round rise and ( we are talking about a QB, and QBs are more often than not an exception to the rules. Such is the way or QBs. But in Mossaquoi, we are talking about a guy who was considered a 4th/5th round prospect and is not being talked about as mid 2nd? That is not just a rise, but a major leap.

I previously saw the report from some guy (I think on CNNSI) talking about Nicks, Britt and Harvin slipping out of the 1st round. Honestly, I didn't think much of it. While it may have been on SI, it was still just the opinion of one guy, which seemed to run counter to what most everyone else thought. Now I am starting to wonder a bit more. I read the other day Rick Gosslin's 1st mock draft. I am not saying Gosslin, or anyone out there is so perfect they know for a fact what will happen, but Gosslin does have a pretty damn good record, though he will have more versions after this one. But in his 1st mock, all three of those WRs failed to be drafted in the 1st round. Now, I do not think any make it all the way to us, but what I do wonder is, the further they fall, the most the odds a WR like Robiskie makes it to us in the 2nd. I have heard talk of Mossaquia and Iglesias (who I actually like) in the 2nd, but to me, Robiskie is so far and away a better option than either of those two is it not even funny. I really hope the WRs do fall, as they creates a better chance a WR like Robiskie falling to us. I really prefer the idea of a WRs slipping in the draft to us, over drafting a WR who a month ago was projected to go in the 4th or 5th round.

Not a fan, at least not in the 2nd round. Frankly, the 3rd round is iffy for me. I just really have an issue w/ players who rise by leaps and bounds in the offseason. Barden is another I question, at least as high (2nd round to Oakland) as I have heard some talk about. I know players move up and down in the offseason, but players who take major leaps (or downturns) are players that raise red flags for me. Very shortly ago, he was considered a 4th or 5th rounder. Then he started to climb. Okay, fine. But the 2nd round? That is a 2 to 3 round rise. That is a bit much for me. Ditto Barden. I personally believe too much is made out of offseason stuff, and too often the offseason stuff begins to cloud what the player actually did on the field. If a guy was mediocre in college, but is 6'4 and runs a 4.34/40, all of a sudden he is a great prospect. Forget that he never could do crap in college. Not saying that is Mosoquai, but the point is the same. If a guy rises some in value, fine. But when the rise is extreme, I just have to really question the value of that pick. On the opposite side of that, I don't mind looking at a guy who slips some. Depends on the reason, sure. But if a WR was a stud in college, for a major program, but then slips because he could put up a great time on a track, in shorts...well, that is a player I like to draft.

I think that Bears' fans are just accustomed to having a garbage offense, and a solid defense. Many are just used to accepting the fact that the offense is essentially the kid who played right field in little league, and the defense has been the pitcher/shortstop hybrid. The pitcher may have been shelled, but the kid in right field still sucked. But how much of that expectation is based on personnel? Angelo has spent time, money and picks on the defense, loading up w/ pro bowl caliber personnel on the defense. How many pro bowl or pro bowl alternate players did we start on D last year? When you invest so much on one side of the ball, the expectation is greater. On the other side, history alone did not create a low expectation. So the talent and personnel. We started the year w/ Orton at QB, and few would call him great. We had an OL which was flat out awful. We started a converted WR on one side, who previously had now shown even the ability to learn the plays, and Davis on the other side, who doesn't deserve an explanation for low expectations. While many liked him, we started also a 2nd round pick rookie RB. So I would argue more than just history created a different expectation for the offense and defense. I simply disagree. I'd say that the offense was more to blame. They showed a more consistent level of inability than the defense did. The number of 3-and-outs is probably staggering. In previous years the defense could make up for it; but this past year the defense just couldn't do it, they weren't as good as before. Sorry, but I don't see it. I understant the idea that an offense that consistently goes 3 and out puts the D behind the 8 ball, but that just isn't what I remember seeing. I would watch our offense lead a drive downfield and score (FG or TD), only to watch the D immediately give up a longer drive, also resulting in points. This year, it didn't seem to matter what the offense did, or at what point in the game we were in. Our D was simply giving up easy 1st downs. It seemed near automatic against our D to just run a slant route for an easy 8 yard gain. That was not because they were tired, but simply because they could not defend the slant. I myself have made the argument that, in the SB, the failures of our offense were a massive factor on our defense, the DM blown play aside. When you don't give your D time to catch their breath. When you lose the field position battle due to the offense. When your offense gives up so dang many turnovers, both on the ground and in the air, there is going to be a direct cause and effect ratio. I simply didn't see such last year. Our offense did a better job last year than in previous years (recent), especially in the first half of the season when Orton was healthy. Yet our D simply stunk. I think the late GB game would be a decent example for your point, but that was also orton's first game back, and it was too soon. But in most any other game I think you could point to, I would argue our defense was a greater factor on the loss than the offense.

I guess I just feel that, as innovative as an OC might try to be, he still is restricted by the weapons he has at his disposal. When you have receivers who struggle to learn the basic plays, does that not make it more difficult to have an expanded playbook? When you have a QB little more than "decent", that too is going to limit you. Further, when you have an OL that is flat out a sieve, again, you are limited. I do understand what you are saying, and have often called out Turner. IMHO, this was one of his better years, though that may be relative. But this year, I saw more different things than in previous years. For example, look how we used Olsen. I really feel Turner deserves props for the various ways we utilized Olsen. On one snap, Olsen would be lined up just at TE. On another, he would go into motion. On another, he would line up outside at WR. On yet on another, he would even line up in the backfield as an in-line blocker. I might argue similar for Hester in how we really seemed to try and move him around, finding ways to get the ball in his hands. I just feel we were very limited here in that, outside Hester and Olsen, we just didn't have the weapons to put on the field. It is harder to not be predictable when you are limited in weapons, and worse, your weapons have a minimal knowledge of the offense they are in. Further looking at last year, I think you can almost look at the season in 2 splits. Prior to the Orton injury, our offense was looking pretty decent, especially considering what we had to work with. They were staying on the field more, scoring more. At one point in the season, wasn't our offense a top 15 offense? I thought it was. But after the Orton injury, our offense tanked. In the 1st half, I thought I saw more plays like you want, which were unexpected and they worked. In the 2nd half, it just didn't work. You can argue a great OC makes whatever he has look good. I might agree w/ that, but no one is calling Turner a great OC. I do however believe the majority of OCs need something to work with in order to be successful, and we just have not had the horses.

One. One thing I believe Turner does is try to "out-smart" other teams. Frankly, that is common. Your facing the #1 run defense and #32 pass defense. The expectation is to pass, so you run the ball, which the #1 run defense instantly stuffs. Thus he tries to out smart the DC, but in the process looks like a fool. W/ that said, I think you have a bit of bias watching bears games vs others. I assume you to be a NFL fan as opposed to only a bear fan. I can not remember a game when I didn't think the OC or DC made awful calls. Regardless who the coach is, bad calls are made. Turner is w/o question no exception. You would argue he makes more bad calls than others. I would argue that as a bear fan, Turner's questionable calls simply stand out more. Other teams fans would likely argue their coaches makes more boneheaded calls. Honestly, I don't want to get into a situation where I am making a huge defense of Turner. I personally am not a huge fan. More than in game adjustments, I felt his in-season adjustments were poor. There were plays that initially worked, but other teams adjusted, and Turner did not adjust to the adjustment. That was among my bigger issues. Two. Personally, i think you make a bit much out of the WR issue. Have some receivers seen more success than in Chicago? Sure. But I do not think it is (a) on the scale you make our and ( due to issue more than just the OC (better QB, better OL, better compliment WR, etc).

I was responding to Jason's argument. I have been on the Duke Robinson as long as, or longer, than Jason. I have been preaching to draft OL for as long as Jason. Even w/ all the addition in FA, I still want to draft OL, and would love to add Duke. That isn't the point. Jason questioned adding the 7th or 8th WR when the top rated OG is still on the board. My point was that the 7th or 8th best WR may still be graded higher than the #1 OG. Just as last year, 8 or however many OL were graded higher (and drafted higher) than the top WR, which was not drafted until round 2.

Hey Jason. I disagree often enough w/ Turner, but I just do not understand the hate you send his way. I don't think anyone is saying he is great, but at the same time, I just feel you do have to look at what he had to work w/. We have spent our money, and used up most of our luck, on defense. We have done so little over the years to upgrade on offense. We continually added QBs who were between average and pathetic. We added poor WRs, one after another. OL? Have you and I not raved on this one long enough. About the only area we added talent was RB. TJ, Forte, and I would even say to some extent Benson. But w/ the QB and WRs we had, those RBs always faced stacked boxes, and did so behind an awful OL. So while you may not want to give him the benefit of doubt, I would simply argue he hasn't done as awful as you think considering how little he had to work with. This is the year we find out, as we finally spent resources (and hopfully we are not done) on the offense. Turner now has: A franchise QB. A franchise RB. An OL which may not be what either of us wanted, but at the same time is a massive upgrade from last year. A great duo at TE. No more excuses. We have the talent to have a pretty damn good offense, and I would argue that if we could land Holt, a top 10 offense. Will we see that? Who knows. But as much as this is a make or break year for Lovie, I think it is also for Turner who is out of excuses.

Hey, you know I agree w/ you on OL in general, but I can't go along w/ this argument. Look at this last year in the reverse. How many OL were drafted last year before the 1st WR was taken? 7, 8, 9? Does that mean, for example, KC should not have drafted the 4th (or was it 5th) OL before the 1st of other positions was drafted? Or maybe further down. Houston should not have drafted OL? You have to know this is a bad argument. Various positions in different years are stronger or weaker than in others. The top rated safety this year is not overall that highly rated. Ditto the top rated OG. I agree we need S and OL. That isn't my point. The point is simply that the argument you used is just not a very good one.

How exactly did StL get Pace. You know. The guy who started for so many years and went to so many pro bowls. Oh yea. They drafted him. So StL did well in the draft and had a premeir LT for a decade. We sign him at a point when it was up in the air whether he would play LT or RT, and either way, is likely to only give us a couple years at a diminished level, and you believe our adding an OT in his twighlight years is evidence to not draft OL when the alternative argument is StL? Nice logic.

That was my point earlier. To move up, it looks like it would take our 2nd round pick NEXT year, which is about equal to a 3rd rounder this year, or the value necessary for us to move up in the draft.

But how can they move up? We traded our 3rd round pick, and while we have another 3rd rounder, it is a compensation pick and can not be dealt. I am not sure we can package our 4th - 7th round picks to move up. I have always read that you value future picks such that, a 2nd next year is worth a 3rd this year. That means to move up into the top of the 2nd round would cost us our 2nd round pick next year. Such a move is equal to about our 3rd this year, but that means 2nd next. We just gave away our 1st and 3rd this year. We are already w/o our 1st next. I have a hard time seeing Angelo passing on both the 1st and 2nd round of next years draft. I am not opposed to moving up to get the "right"person. I just fail to see how we have the ammo to pull it off.

I basically get what you are saying, just have a hard time using the draft value points for a veteran player. I personally just question how well they apply. Part of my issue here is, if we put Orton, by himself, on the block, do you think anyone would give us a 1st? Lets say Denver lost Cutler, and we still had Orton. Do you think even then Denver would give us a 1st for Orton? I don't think they would have even given us a 2nd. That is why I have a hard time w/ your argument. I think Orton had value in the package, no question, but just have a hard time putting his value as a 1st round pick. Regardless how we calculate it though, what is w/o question is Orton had very real value. He was far more than a throw-in part. As for the SB aspect, I would not put too much into that as, I think it is w/o question we will be giving Cutler a new deal, and soon, and thus we still be giving up a very large SB.

I don't think either are leaders. They are great players, and some would argue the sort that leads by example, but is that being a leader? To an extent, maybe. But just because you are playing as best as you can, I just am not sure I would call that in itself being a leader. I think there is more to leadership than that. I am talked about this before, but for whatever reason, I just do not think our team has leaders. On defense, once we had Mike Brown, but even he talked about how it was difficult to be a vocal leader when missing so much time, or at least that was the way he felt. Of the rest of the D, I am just not sure any are real leaders. On offense, the one player we always here about is Kreutz. Maybe he was, but is he still today? As Brown said, it is hard to be a vocal leader when you are not playing great, and Kreutz has not played great for some time. It's hard to preach to another teamate about assignments when you are constantly blowing your own assignment. He may still be somewhat of a leader, but I doubt he is a leader today like he once was. Hope for leadership. Offense It all starts w/ Cutler, who has always been a bit cocky (in a good way IMHO). Many in the media question his leadership due to recent events, but I do not recall his field leadership ever being questioned prior. While many players talk about how difficult it is to be a leader joining a new team, I do not think Cutler will feel that way, especially as a QB. I think he is more the type to take the reigns from day one and not let go. Pace - I still have my personal issue w/ his being a LT, but that aside, he is w/o question a player I see others looking to for leadership. I think R.Brown provided some leadership a few years ago, and see the same from Pace, if not more so. While he too is new, I think future HOF players are an exception to the rule. Defense Honestly, I still do not see one. Briggs, Urlacher and Harris are our best players, and yet none have shown field leadership IMHO. If they have gone this long w/o, I question why we should suddenly expect different. That is one aspect I think is huge in the draft. I really want to see players w/ leadership qualityies added. While they may not provide instant leadership, my hope is more down the road.

I know the reasoning, but just can't go along w/ it. I just don't see how you can say, "if Cutler were in the draft....." If Cutler were in the draft, he would be an unkonw. The reality is, Cutler was in the draft, and he was not the #1 pick in the draft. Seriously, we can talk all day about what value Orton had, but the main point was simply this. Most here considered Orton a decent QB and a throw in piece to any deal, and yet he was essentially the deal maker. Just something to think about. If we had Rex and not Orton, would we have Cutler?

Half full for me is overflowing for others:)

I am not sure how thrilled Cutler would be to hear we want him to prove himself for a year, but that aside, regarding what we should do w/ this years cap space. We really do not have any veterans we need to extend. If we did as you talked about, I think we might be better off using LTBE's to push our cap space next year (assuming there is a cap) high so we can then re-sign Cutler. Honestly though, we have already made our bed giving up all the picks and orton. Now we need to take the next step and re-sign him long term. When you make deal like this, you do it all the way. You don't let the stud come to Chicago only to make him wonder "what the hell" when he gets paid minimal. Besides, I just want to see the McCaskey's write a check for $30m